Dutch court rules linking to photos is copyright infringement

A Dutch court has ruled that the website GeenStijl infringed copyright by linking to unauthorized copies of nude pictures of reality star Britt Dekker. The pictures originally appeared in the Dutch version of Playboy magazine.

According to the Associated Press, the website has been ordered to pay €28,400 ($36,000) and will face further fines if it does not remove the links.

"The court said GeenStijl called attention to naked photos of model Britt Dekker posted on a website called Filefactory by an unknown person shortly before publication of the November 2011 issue of the magazine," the AP reports.

"This decision is terrifying for every journalist and everyone with a website," GeenStijl said in an online statement. The site says it disagrees with the court's reasoning, and argued that Dutch copyright law is in urgent need of reform.

Linking generally does not constitute copyright infringement in the United States. However, the US government has begun prosecuting the operators of "link sites" that contain large numbers of carefully organized links to infringing content.

It's been just over 10 years since public performance of any music was made illegal under the No Pollution Act of 2046. How are you getting your rhythmic fix? Click here for less crowded bird-watching locations!

5% of America's population currently imprisoned. Bribe your kids to perform better in class with a larger annual bonus, to ensure they receive entry to the highest rated penitentiaries!

This was more than just linking. It was linking to a hidden file and they admidded in court that they just did it to get more traffic and more profit. And they got the link from an insider. So it is more than just a link.

And don't forget, this is the Netherlands, where downloading almost everything is legal, just uploading isn't.

It's been just over 10 years since public performance of any music was made illegal under the No Pollution Act of 2046. How are you getting your rhythmic fix? Click here for less crowded bird-watching locations!

5% of America's population currently imprisoned. Bribe your kids to perform better in class with a larger annual bonus, to ensure they receive entry to the highest rated penitentiaries!

This was more than just linking. It was linking to a hidden file and they admidded in court that they just did it to get more traffic and more profit. And they got the link from an insider. So it is more than just a link.

That doesn't even matter. A link to a hidden file is still just a link. And besides, the real problem here is 1) the reasoning of the court and 2) going after GeenStijl in the first place.

They should just have sent a DMCA Notice to FileFactory and the problem would have gone away.

I think a little bit more nuance is in order. Yes the order is terrifying for every journalist, but certainly not for every website or everyone. The point is not that they infringed on the copyright in the traditional sense, but they 'publicised' the photos. What GeenStijl did is called 'intervention', they introduced the photos to a new audience and linked to the photos for profit.

Apparently not. Even though it's not a difficult concept, the idea of links seems to evade a lot of people. They confuse the fact that it's just an address with the fact that computers are really fast and efficient at looking things up. Linking has to be consequence free.

So the Dutch court has just made Google illegal then?Because thats the precedent they've set here. If linking is illegal; Google's Al Capone in this.

Yet again; the financial interests of a small group has been placed ahead of the civil liberties of others by people who don't understand the modern world. It's akin to the supreme court being run by children.

Apparently not. Even though it's not a difficult concept, the idea of links seems to evade a lot of people. They confuse the fact that it's just an address with the fact that computers are really fast and efficient at looking things up. Linking has to be consequence free.

Computers are also really good at copying data. That's practically 90% of everything they do.

We need to invent new computers which only do what the lawyers tell them to do! It's the only way we can save the intertubes!

This wasn't a narrow interpretation of IP, it was just stealing pictures from a playboy shoot (they will post anything these days...) before they where published. They didn't find them, they didn't stumble onto them, they got an insider to tell them where to find them. If they would have published a story about how weak the security at playboy is, no problem, then it serves a journalistic purpose. In this case they just did it to draw traffic to their site and make money out of it, so there was no journalistic purpose.

So this has nothing to do with IP or copyrights as they didn't copy them, they didn't get slapped on the wrists for the hyperlink, it has to do with making profits from somebody else's work aka stealing.

Again, Netherlands is very easy on copyright as far as individuals are concerned. I can download any film on torrents or binaries without any worry for the BUMA/STEMRA mobsters.

Topevoli wrote:

Its a shame, I don't think shes worth $36,000 in the flesh.

And not just in the flesh, when you see her on the telly, well, let's say she's not the most inteligent woman you've come across. And mind you, the 30.000 was just for process costs and there is going to be another ruling to determin the damages that playboy might have had. The €30.000 is quite unheard of in the Netherlands, where it is often not more than 1500-5000 for the costs...

This was more than just linking. It was linking to a hidden file and they admidded in court that they just did it to get more traffic and more profit. And they got the link from an insider. So it is more than just a link.

That doesn't even matter. A link to a hidden file is still just a link. And besides, the real problem here is 1) the reasoning of the court and 2) going after GeenStijl in the first place.

Yes, it does matter very much. According to the verdict, which is based on a verdict by the European Court, there are three criteria: intervention, a new audience, profit (almost looks like a /. joke). The offending website actively promoted the link no-one else could find to get more hits, thus more ad revenues, even after having been warned off by the publisher. More details here: http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/111766/recht ... britt.html.

Quote:

They should just have sent a DMCA Notice to FileFactory and the problem would have gone away.

"Sending a DMCA notice" is not going to work when you're Dutch. It's a US thingy.

This wasn't a narrow interpretation of IP, it was just stealing pictures from a playboy shoot (they will post anything these days...) before they where published. They didn't find them, they didn't stumble onto them, they got an insider to tell them where to find them.

Playboy is a US corporation, so we must assume that they also buy into the idea that they "made available" the pictures by "publishing" them on the net in an accessible fashion, assuming others would view them.

alec_gold wrote:

So this has nothing to do with IP or copyrights as they didn't copy them, they didn't get slapped on the wrists for the hyperlink, it has to do with making profits from somebody else's work aka stealingfraud.

This was more than just linking. It was linking to a hidden file and they admidded in court that they just did it to get more traffic and more profit. And they got the link from an insider. So it is more than just a link.

And don't forget, this is the Netherlands, where downloading almost everything is legal, just uploading isn't.

Well, no, it's not "more than just a link" because it is just a link to a picture file on the internet.

Why they created the link and how they obtained the URL isn't relevant.

This wasn't a narrow interpretation of IP, it was just stealing pictures from a playboy shoot (they will post anything these days...) before they where published. They didn't find them, they didn't stumble onto them, they got an insider to tell them where to find them.

Congratulations! You've just described the business model for "tabloid journalism."

If what this website did is illegal, then Rupert Murdoch should probably be up for execution.

It's been just over 10 years since public performance of any music was made illegal under the No Pollution Act of 2046. How are you getting your rhythmic fix? Click here for less crowded bird-watching locations!

5% of America's population currently imprisoned. Bribe your kids to perform better in class with a larger annual bonus, to ensure they receive entry to the highest rated penitentiaries!

So this has nothing to do with IP or copyrights as they didn't copy them, they didn't get slapped on the wrists for the hyperlink, it has to do with making profits from somebody else's work aka stealing.

In no way shape or form can linking ever be called stealing. People can have the copyright infringement/theft debate all day, but a link is just a link. It's like an address or a phone number. It's a fact, it can have no ownership or copyright, and since it points to a place on the publicly accessible internet there are no privacy concerns. It's a link.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.